You must use the “Get Article” link below and use the copied text for your repost. Stories may not be edited without permission from Ensia. Please send an email to contact@ensia.com with a link to the republished story on your site once posted.

Images and other visuals are not included in this license. For specific questions related to visuals, please contact Todd Reubold. For other inquiries, email contact@ensia.com.

The post is now in your clipboard. You can paste it directly into the WYSIWYG editor of your site.

June 13, 2019 — The media coverage of the Green New Deal, a plan unveiled by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of Congress to overhaul the U.S. economy by investing in renewable energy and green jobs, focused as much on its reception as on its substance. Republicans panned it as socialism. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mocked it. Many columnists, such as the New York Times’ David Brooks, criticized its heavy reliance on public spending and government-provided jobs. Other critics questioned the plan’s broad focus. What, they asked, did provision of medical care have to do with overhauling America’s energy network?

The casual observer could be forgiven for dismissing the plan and the response to it, especially because it has no chance of passing in the current Congress. But the plan is a sign of a larger shift in environmental thinking. There is a growing recognition of the need for structural changes to address the climate crisis and other serious environmental problems. An increasing number of influential office holders and thinkers are calling for policies that go far beyond mere tinkering. To overhaul our energy system and preserve threatened ecosystems, they recognize that we must aggressively disrupt the status quo.

The best part of the Green New Deal is its insistence on bold steps to slow climate change and develop an economy based on renewable energy. As its name suggests, the plan is predicated on the idea that individual behavioral change will not lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse emissions or deliver meaningful environmental progress in other areas. We must, its authors insist, overhaul our economy to meet our environmental responsibilities. Even those who question this premise should celebrate the plan’s audacious goals.

Other environmental thinkers echo this skepticism about behavioral change. David Wallace-Wells, author of a recent book on climate change, concludes, “The effects of individual lifestyle choices are ultimately trivial compared with what politics can achieve.” While Wallace-Wells may find fault with some aspects of the Green New Deal, including its silence regarding nuclear power, he enthusiastically endorses the need to think big.

We must focus our efforts not on changing our individual behavior but on far-reaching communal changes.

The emphasis on the need to overhaul our economic, technological and social systems is a welcome departure from the fixation with individual behavior that often dominates popular environmental discourse. The furor over use of plastic straws, which became a litmus test of environmental responsibility in some circles over the past couple of years, suggests the limitations of this preoccupation with individual action. Americans concerned about excessive use of plastic should worry much more about laws recently passed by several states that ban municipalities from imposing bans on plastic bag distribution in retail stores than about whether the diner at the next table is using a plastic straw. To make substantial environmental progress we must get beyond environmental narcissism — excessive concern about the consumption habits of ourselves and our family and friends. We must focus our efforts not on changing our individual behavior but on far-reaching communal changes.

Individual vs. Collective Action

Recent developments in St. Paul, Minnesota, suggest that this will be a challenge. In October 2018 the city implemented a new residential waste collection system. Under the old system, households contracted with a trash hauler of their choice. St. Paul was one of the largest cities in the United States to use this free-choice model. On many blocks, residents contracted with several hauling firms. The result was that trucks from multiple haulers plied the same alleys on different days, spewing exhaust and wearing down the road.

Fed up with this system, residents held forums throughout the city to solicit feedback on the existing system and ideas about alternatives. (Disclosure: I helped organize these forums.) These forums ultimately led to a state-sanctioned process under which St. Paul negotiated a contract with haulers that divided the city into zones so each neighborhood was assigned a single hauler. Although recent events have called the system — and the city’s response — into question, currently it works like this: No longer do several trucks a week come barreling down residents’ alleys. Instead, recycling and trash collection now occur on the same day, reducing emissions and truck traffic. Russ Stark, St. Paul’s chief resilience officer, estimated that switching to organized collection reduced greenhouse gas emissions associated with garbage truck traffic by as much as 75%.

Ultimately, the most important thing that we can do as citizens is to change the systems that pollute the Earth.

As with any new system, there were complaints from various quarters. Some of the most vociferous criticism came from those who had previously shared bins with neighbors, a practice that, though technically illegal, was widespread. These bin-sharers argued that the new system, which required each household to pay for its own bin to fairly distribute operational costs, discouraged conservation and was unduly expensive.

Why, I wondered, would some of my neighbors dwell on the remote possibility that a sliver of households might produce more trash under the new system when, as a city, we were drastically slashing diesel emissions from garbage trucks? Couldn’t they see that this focus on individual behavior was misplaced next to the significant environmental benefits of putting an end to the parade of trucks?

Catalyze Structural Change

The desire to become a more ecologically responsible consumer and citizen is admirable, but it falls well short of the environmental change we need. Even as more Americans packed their groceries into reusable bags and toted their metal water bottles to the gym, Congress passed virtually no significant environmental legislation. By defining environmental citizenship as responsible consumption, sustainability advocates downplay the need for mass action to catalyze structural change. Fortunately, a new generation of leaders is unveiling a much more wide-ranging environmental agenda, as exemplified by the Green New Deal.

Of course, we should encourage personal environmental responsibility. Modifying our individual dietary, travel and consumption habits can lead to reduced pollution and better air quality, among other benefits. We should make these smaller improvements — but not at the expense of the much-needed focus on transformational environmental changes.

Ultimately, the most important thing that we can do as citizens is to change the systems that pollute the Earth. Those in the vanguard of the environmental revolution that we so desperately need will not spend their waking hours discussing the finer points of eschewing plastic straws. They will be pounding on the doors of their Congressional representatives to demand the wide-ranging changes that only government, directly or indirectly, can deliver.

Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present ​them to further discussion around important topics. ​We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found on this page. ​In addition, you might consider​ ​submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s Contact page for submission guidelines.

Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.

Yes, we need systematic change, AND we need individual behavior change. I did my graduate work in environmental behavior change, and it frustrates me whenever I hear messages that discount the importance of individual behavior. Sure, the impacts of individual behaviors probably won’t be as great as policy changes, but often environmental behaviors are tied to people’s identities and values – and thus, how they vote. Encouraging people to adopt behaviors that reflect their values toward protecting the environment and future generations is connected to motivating the groundswell of action needed to enact policy and other systematic changes. Individual actions can help people feel empowered to do something, and people need to feel empowered for systematic change to occur. Individual actions are a way for us to connect to something greater that may feel beyond our individual control, and repeated behaviors and intentions can serve to reinforce our beliefs accordingly. And we use those beliefs to vote. Individual empowerment can fuel people’s drive to push for systematic changes. I don’t find discounting individual behaviors helpful, and it in fact may be harmful, leading people to think they can’t do anything or discouraging that critical connection with personal values. I think a more productive framing for this is the “yes…and” model. Yes, keep doing those individual actions that reflect the change you want to see happen, AND let’s push for systematic change. We need both.

GardnerJun. 18th, 2019

This is exactly right - the gigantic and interlocking systems we all live within cannot be left alone. And yet part of systemic change must be driven by grassroots changes; changes in ideas will shift institutional/systemic behavior.

Thanks for the piece!

Steven JorissenJun. 18th, 2019

I would rather see someone drive a Hummer to an oil pipeline protest than a bicycle commuter who votes for a climate denier.

MM/RFACJun. 18th, 2019

Agreed with the first two comments: both are needed. I wouldn't underestimate the power of individuals. Drop by drop, person by person, our choices will impact economic forces and save the environment we depend on.
Changing our behaviors would make a tremendous difference. Billions of gallon of water will be saved from being flushed down the toilet, underground water reserves will replenish, food security of good organic produce will increase, and our social fabric will strengthen for a strong compassionate society as parents are supported to do one of the most important jobs on the planet.

Gerd WeyerJul. 10th, 2019

I appreciate and agree with the comment posted by Jenny S. It is all too easy to blame big business and policy while continuing to pollute and purchase more.

DingDonginatorFeb. 26th, 2020

The point of changing the climate isn't what can I do, it's what we all do as a whole that changes everything, even if one person doesn't make a difference, if the whole population followed that ones persons example, they would reduce climate change substantially.

Jay AllenApr. 10th, 2020

The coronavirus has given us an incredible opportunity to study our environment at low CO2 levels!

Post a Comment

You care about environmental issues. So do we!

Sign up now for our bi-weekly newsletter and you'll get the latest stories from Ensia delivered straight to your inbox.